= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (186)
"witty" was describing my remark, as in the remarks I hold back on may not actually be witty, I was not trying to reference your remark though in retrospect it does seem easy to infer that so I apologize for communicating sloppily.
Attacks that do not forward the conversation are not useful. If the attacker does not expose the logic and data behind their attack then the person being attacked has no logic or data to pick a part and respond to and has no reason to believe that the attacker is earnest in seeking the truth.
Your attack against Nominull was, in fact, stronger and less ambiguous than Nominull's.
The logic behind the point was actually quite obvious, which is not to say I would have presented it in this context. As Perplexed points out, sometimes there are benefits to taking the effort that you do know what other people have written. (Incidentally, I upvoted both Eliezer Phil and left Nominull alone).
Nominull's comment, discourteous or not, furthered the actual conversation while yours did not (and nor did mine). So that isn't the deciding factor here of why your kind of attack is different from Nominull's kind. I think the difference in perception is that you are responding to provocation, which many people perceive as a whole different category - but that can depend which side you empathise with.